[Roll] Fwd: Improving and Restructuring the Routing Area

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It would be great if you can give your ideas of this topic in the
routing-discussion ML.

Thanks in advance,

Michael and Ines.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Improving and Restructuring the Routing Area
To: [e-mail]


To all participants in the Routing Area,

Adrian and I are working on improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area.  There are
three initiatives that we are working: WG Draft QA, Routing Area
specific WG chair training, and reorganizing the working groups in the
area.

First, we intend to use our Routing Directorate more proactively by
introducing a Working Group Draft Quality Assurance (WG Draft QA)
process where the same selected routing directorate member will review
a draft during WG draft adoption and during WG last call.  The process
will be documented on the Routing Area wiki
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki).  This should allow
directorate reviews to report technical issues that can actually get
fixed early in the process (equivalent of bug reports) as opposed to
just noting the concerns in the drafts (equivalent of release notes).

Second, as was discussed during the recent IESG retreat, in addition
to the IETF-wide WG chair training, we intend to have a series of
training sessions for WG Chairs in the Routing Area addressing topics
such as judging consensus, project management, motivating volunteers,
using the datatracker (via a sandbox version that can be played
with safely), and sharing experiences between WG chairs.

Third, we intend to reorganize the working groups in the Routing area.
We feel that it is important to focus on areas where there is active
interest in standardization and to be open and able to accept new work
into the area.  As you know, we have had several new working groups
(nvo3, i2rs, sfc, spring) created in the last few years and we need to
be open and able to handle more new work as it comes in.  We would
also like to improve the signal-to-noise ratio experienced by
participants in the different working groups and improve the quantity
and quality of discussion and reviews.  It is likely that not all WGs
in the Routing Area will be directly affected.

Here is the time-line for reorganizing the WGs.

   NOW: public discussion on [e-mail] about how to
   reorganize the working groups to best meet our motivations.
   Additional focused discussions are expected on the
   [e-mail] and [e-mail] mailing lists.

   In Toronto: There will be meetings with the WG chairs and the
   Routing Directorate to get the ideas described and agreed upon.

   At the Routing Area Meeting in Toronto: Discuss the set of
   reorganized WGs and general charter content in the Routing Area
   meeting.

   September 2014: Based upon the feedback, suggestions, and
   discussion, Adrian and I finalize the reorganized WG charters.  We
   start the internal IESG discussion and public reviews.

   October 2014: Formal rechartering process completes.

   In Honolulu: The new set of WGs meet.

   After Honolulu: Adrian and I deal with any issues and charter
   updates based upon a few months of experience.

Here are the motivations that Adrian and I would like to be considered
when coming up with ideas for how the WGs should be reorganized.

   1) Move towards organizing working groups on functional
   responsibilities rather than scoping them to specific protocols.

   2) Split giant working groups so relevant work is done in one place
   and there is an improved signal-to-noise ratio for participants who
   are only interested in a slice of the current working group's work.

   3) Create synergies for scattered functionality (example ideas:
   OAM, FRR, traffic-engineering)

   4) Create a DISPATCH working group for clear new idea discussion;
   rtgwg serves some of this purpose but doesn't have a clear process
   and isn't drawing in the new ideas.

   5) Focus Routing Area time on design centers rather than on far
   corner cases.

   6) Each working group should have clear, well defined, and achievable
goals.

Noting that the Routing Area has inherited some of its WG structure
from the sub-IP area, it is not a goal to force IP routing and MPLS
routing to remain separated.

The goal of this reorganization is not closing working groups.  Adrian
and Alia are perfectly capable of closing working groups without going
through restructuring.

For those of you that have read this far, thank you.  Getting this 80%
right is going to take some serious discussion and thought.  We all
work in the Routing Area together with different perspectives.  Please
think carefully and help us have a highly focused discussion.

Thanks,
Alia and Adrian